Linking Landscapes · 2014. 1. 7. · Linking Landscapes Exploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas IUCN World Heritage Study

Linking LandscapesExploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas

IUCN World Heritage Study No 11

The contents of this study do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IUCN or contributory organizations. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Copyright: © 2013 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Finke, G. (2013). Linking Landscapes. Exploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural

landscapes and IUCN protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 26pp. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1640-4 Cover photo: The Lavaux Vineyard Terraces, Switzerland © IUCN Evelyne Clarke

The Lavaux Vineyard Terraces World Heritage cultural landscape overlaps with the Lavaux Landscape and Natural Monument of National Importance, a Category V protected area as recognised by IUCN.

Layout by: IUCN World Heritage Programme Produced by: IUCN World Heritage Programme Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

World Heritage Programme Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org/publications

http://www.iucn.org/publications

Linking LandscapesExploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas

Lead author Gunnar Finke, Advisor on Biodiversity, German International Cooperation (GIZ) With contributions from Adrian Phillips, World Commission on Protected Areas Tim Badman, Director, World Heritage Programme, IUCN Nora Mitchell, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Vermont Jessica Brown, Consultant, Chair, IUCN-WCPA Protected Landscapes Specialist Group Acknowledgements Special thanks go to Prof. Adrian Phillips, Tim Badman, Nora Mitchell and Jessica Brown who have contributed significantly to the preparation, review and editing of this study. Without their continuous support this study would not have been possible. Grateful thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Werner Konold (Chair for Landscape Management, University of Freiburg), Dr. Franz Höchtl (Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation) and Dr. Claire Cave (School of Biology & Environmental Science, University College Dublin) for supervision of and advice on the related MSc-thesis. About IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government and NGO Members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. www.iucn.org

http://www.iucn.org/

1

Executive Summary World Heritage cultural landscapes are recognised under UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention as outstanding examples of the “combined works of nature and man” (UNESCO 1972, p. 2). They embrace the diverse interactions between humankind and its natural environment. Protected areas are defined by IUCN as “clearly defined geographical spaces, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008, p. 8), with a series of categories used to reflect different management objectives and governance types. Both World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas play a vital role in the conservation of the world’s cultural and natural heritage. But what do the Mapungbwe National Park in South Africa or the Hawaiian Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument have in common with the Indian Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka or the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia? These places share one important characteristic: they and many other sites are designated both as World Heritage cultural landscapes and as protected areas as recognised by IUCN. The topic of this study reveals these conceptual, spatial and practical linkages between the two systems of conservation designations. The study shows that there are: • significant conceptual connections between World Heritage cultural landscapes and the IUCN

protected areas categories system, • clear spatial overlaps, with roughly two thirds of all World Heritage cultural landscapes coinciding

with protected areas in one or more of the IUCN management categories, • substantial management and governance relations between World Heritage cultural landscapes

and protected areas. The results can be used: • to help IUCN, working in partnership with ICOMOS, ICCROM, UNESCO and other relevant

international bodies to make better use of the synergies that exist between natural and cultural values in World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas,

• to support national authorities plan and manage World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas in a more integrated way,

• to assist site managers of World Heritage cultural landscapes and associated protected areas to maximise the benefits of overlapping status,

• to identify the need for improved data so that information about World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas can be more easily collated, monitored and compared in future.

2

Introduction and Scope of the Study There is growing evidence of strong linkages between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas (Phillips 2003; Rössler & Mitchell 2005; Rössler 2006). Initial studies by Phillips (2005) have resulted in the observation that World Heritage cultural landscapes often appear to spatially overlap or partially coincide with protected areas. The extent of this overlap – both conceptually and spatially – between World Heritage cultural landscapes and the various IUCN protected area management categories has however not been explored and described in more detail prior to this study. As the number of cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List grows, there is corresponding need for capacity development and exchange amongst site managers and institutions involved in the management, governance and conservation of such areas (Mitchell et al. 2009). The degree to which the management and governance of World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected area management categories interact or coincide has however neither been explored in more detail prior to the endeavour described in this study. Among the protected area categories are some kinds of protected area that specifically include the protection of human-altered landscapes (Dudley 2008). This is notably the case with Category V Protected Landscapes/Seascapes which are places where the interaction of people and nature has produced characteristic ecologically, biologically, culturally and scenically important natural values (Phillips 2002). The study therefore identifies these relationships and documents the links that exists between these two systems of conservation designations, as well as the practical management and governance associations that occur between them. It does so by analysing: i) the conceptual similarities and differences between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas; ii) the spatial overlap between them; and iii) the practical interrelation and integration that occurs ‘on the ground’, taking two sites, the Hungarian Hortobágy National Park and Thingvellir National Park in Iceland, as examples. Background In 1992, the World Heritage Committee introduced the opportunity for cultural landscapes considered to be of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) to be nominated by States Parties for inclusion in the World Heritage List1. Cultural landscapes are defined in the Operational Guidelines as the “combined works of nature and man” that are “illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal” (UNESCO 2012, para. 47). They may be nominated under the following three categories (see fig. 1 on the next page): 1 Decision 16COM XIII.1-3

3

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

(I) The most easily identifiable category is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons, which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

(II)

The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories: a) a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process

came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.

b) a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

(III) The final category is the associative cultural landscape. The inscription of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.

Figure 1: Cultural landscape definitions and categories under the World Heritage Convention While cultural landscapes are defined as cultural heritage under Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention, and via the cultural World Heritage criteria (i)-(vi) (UNESCO 2012, para. 77), rather than under the natural World Heritage criteria, global efforts to conserve such landscapes recognise that these places may also possess significant natural values (Phillips 1995, 1998). This is also recognised in the Operational Guidelines: “Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relationship to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity" (UNESCO 2012, Annex 3, I. 9, with emphasis added). Cultural landscapes may furthermore reflect the cultural and spiritual relationships of people with nature and the intangible, cultural dimension of biodiversity conservation (UNESCO 2002, Rössler 2006). Many such landscapes play an important role in providing a variety of ecosystem services (MEA 2005a, b; de Groot & Ramakrishnan 2005). Their proper management should include the conservation of their biodiversity (UNESCO 2012) and the safeguarding of the ecosystem services they provide. As the advisory body to the World Heritage Committee on natural heritage, IUCN takes an active interest in the natural values of cultural landscapes, working with ICOMOS as the advisory body which leads on advising on cultural aspects of World Heritage nominations and related monitoring. IUCN (2006; see also UNESCO 2012, Annex 6, para. 16) has identified a number of natural heritage qualities that cultural landscapes may possess, these include: (i) Conservation of biodiversity in wild nature (in particular natural and semi-natural systems, wild

species of fauna and flora) (ii) Conservation of biodiversity within farming systems (iii) Sustainable land use (iv) Enhancement of scenic beauty (v) Ex-situ collections (vi) Outstanding examples of humanity's inter-relationship with nature (vii) Historically significant discoveries

4

IUCN is also responsible for the development of the international IUCN protected area management categories system. This system outlines the concept of a “protected area” and defines such as a “clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008, p. 8). It organises protected areas into the following six categories2 distinguished by their management objectives (see fig. 2): Category Ia: Strict nature reserve Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring. Category Ib: Wilderness area Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition. Category II: National Park Large natural or near-natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities. Category III: Natural monument or feature Set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature, such as an ancient grove. They are generally rather small protected areas and often have high visitor values. Category IV: Habitat/species management area Category IV protected areas aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category. Category V: Protected landscape/seascape A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.

Figure 2: IUCN protected area management categories IUCN recognises that protected areas can be classified according to one of four governance types: governance by government; shared governance; private governance; and governance by indigenous people and local communities. Accordingly, any management category can exist under any of the four governance types, or vice-versa. Conceptual Differences and Similarities Despite many conceptual overlaps between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas as recognized by IUCN, it is important to set out and define some conceptual differences. The IUCN protected area management categories system and its definition are meant as an international standard framework for national or sub-national application. The values that IUCN-categorised protected areas protect may be of local, regional, national or international significance. By contrast, all World Heritage sites must meet the global test of being of OUV, and logically are all sites

2 Of which category I is split into two sub-categories: Ia and Ib.

5

which are also regionally, nationally and locally significant. It is possible to represent this relationship diagrammatically (see fig. 3 below).

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE LOCAL NATIONAL REGIONAL GLOBAL

World Heritage Cultural Landscapes All All All All

IUCN Protected Areas All Predominant Some A few

Figure 3: Simplified table of significance between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN categorised protected areas (in global numbers) A guiding principle for World Heritage sites is that the site’s integrity (including boundaries), authenticity, and protection and management requirements should all be connected to the values which make up the area’s OUV. In the case of cultural landscapes, the World Heritage requirements and the properties’ management and governance, in particular, will centre on the interaction of people with nature which is a requisite variable and principle character to this type of World Heritage. This people inter-relationship with nature either has or is still on-going and reflected in unique material form or “by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent” (UNESCO 2012, Annex 3, para. 10 (iii)). It follows that a nomination or designation of a cultural landscape as World Heritage includes management that has one key aim and priority: taking active steps to conserve the past or present “combined works of nature and man” (UNESCO 2012) as a result of the people-nature-interaction. In protected areas however, as defined and categorised by IUCN, “only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority” (Dudley 2008, p. 10). It is on the basis of the highlighted characteristics that the following distinguishing features (see fig. 4), which arise from the origins and purposes of each of the two systems, can be outlined:

STANDARD APPLIED IN DEFINING

AREA

GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF

APPLICATION PRINCIPAL

AREAS COVERED MAIN AIMS

World Heritage

Convention: Cultural

Landscapes

Outstanding Universal

Value Global

Areas illustrative of the interaction of man and nature

over time; Categories I-III

Conservation of the combined works of

nature and man

IUCN Protected

Area Definition and Management Categories

National and sub-national significance

National and sub-national

(within the global framework of the IUCN categories)

IUCN Category I-VI areas

Conservation of nature (priority) with associated

ecosystem services and cultural values

Figure 4: General differences between World Heritage cultural landscapes and the IUCN protected area definition and management categories In spite of these important differences, there are key conceptual similarities between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas. These conceptual similarities relate, on the one hand, to the extent to which each of the three cultural landscape categories are likely to share aims with each of the six IUCN management categories. On the other hand, the conceptual similarities are grounded in the concepts of the intensity of human-nature interaction that are innate to the two systems of conservation designations. Of those seven natural heritage qualities that cultural landscapes may possess as (currently) recognised by IUCN in 2006, the most closely related qualities to IUCN-categorised protected areas – both in terms of common management objectives and category specific ones – are the following:

6

• Conservation of natural and semi-natural systems and of biodiversity in wild nature, within farming systems and in relation to sustainable land use practices3

• Natural beauty and aesthetic values4 • Outstanding examples of humanity’s inter-relationship with nature5 It follows that the natural heritage qualities “historically significant discoveries” and examples of “ex-situ collections” relate to the concept of protected areas for reasons of the historic human-nature relationship and by virtue of the history of the natural sciences. Cultural landscapes however illustrate such values in a much more specific and unique way – one which is not innate to the protected area management objectives. All protected areas could be described as nesting in ‘cultural’ landscapes due to the impact cultural practices continuously have or once had in changing and influencing ecology (Dudley 2008). Yet for the purposes of the IUCN protected area definition and guidelines, natural is defined relative to both ecosystem structure and human activity (Dudley 2008; IUCN/WCMC 1994). Natural areas are “those that still retain a complete or almost complete complement of species native to the area, within a more-or-less naturally functioning ecosystem” (Dudley 2008, p. 12). Accordingly, each of the respective protected area categories depict landscapes that are more or less humanly modified, providing a description of the areas’ character in comparison to the intensity of human-nature interaction. On this basis, an average and gradual schematic comparison of naturalness can found to be deployed as shown in figure 5 below, following the gradient Ia = Ib > II = III > IV = VI > V, from most natural to least natural (Dudley 2008, p. 24). This gradient illustrates the degree to which the natural environment can be expected to have been altered through human influence in each category of protected area and between all categories.

Figure 5: Relationship between naturalness and IUCN protected area categories As much as naturalness is regarded as a significant principle in the application of the IUCN protected area categories, this theoretical intensity of human-nature interaction in terms of the degree of human modification of its environment can also be found in each of the underlying concepts of the World Heritage cultural landscape categories as follows: • Cultural landscapes purposely created and designed by humans are entirely altered and

influenced by humans.

3 Relating to natural heritage qualities (i) to (iii). 4 Relating to natural heritage quality (iv) as part of aesthetic and spiritual ecosystem services provided by protected areas, and where such values derive as much from the contrast, and/or interaction, between the works of nature and of humankind as from the intrinsic quality of the natural features. 5 Many protected areas demonstrate human-nature heritage relations which are recognised as part of the evolutionary process that has shaped their natural and cultural landscape qualities, biodiversity and ecosystem services values.

7

• Cultural landscapes that have finished evolving, still witness significant visible material features of the processes that formed them. However, as this evolutionary organic process has come to an end, they are likely – on a theoretical basis – to be in a more natural condition than continuously evolving landscapes, whose human-nature interactions are perpetually shaping their facets.

• Associative cultural landscapes, on the other hand, are landscapes with natural elements to which beliefs, ideas, living traditions or artistic works are attached. Thus, they need not, but can be, humanly altered; the material cultural evidence may either be absent or insignificant for their associative value.

Considering the conceptual relatedness between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas in terms of natural heritage qualities and the innate concepts of the intensity of human-nature interaction, it is concluded that all of the World Heritage cultural landscape types depict varying but substantial conceptual similarities with all of the IUCN protected area categories. The strengths of the conceptual similarities however depend on the natural heritage qualities and the degree of naturalness that is present in either of the two, thus: • Designed and intentionally created landscapes show very little conceptual overlap with

any protected areas categories, though some very limited theoretical relations with certain Category IV or V protected areas may occur. Designed and intentionally created landscapes may solely occur as spatially demarcated features within larger protected areas (notably Category V). Yet, in some specific circumstances, the once natural environmental setting that now has been altered into a designed landscape may have contained areas with high nature conservation value. During the subsequent environmental modification of such areas into the designed landscape, these areas may have been integrated as more natural constituents in garden, parkland or other designed landscape complexes.

• Relict (or fossil) organically evolved landscapes show a degree of conceptual similarity with Categories II to VI protected areas. Relict (or fossil) organically evolved landscapes are a product of the past. As such, they may form part or the basis of the layered and tightly woven grid of human-nature relationships of landscapes with high nature conservation value. Such landscapes may now be protected areas and would as such reflect earlier human intervention or management.

• Continuing organically evolved landscapes show conceptual similarities with the protected area Categories IV to VI, especially with Category V, and some very limited linkages with specific Category III protected areas. Protected area categories IV, VI, and notably V depict areas which, in parts or as an entity, are characterized by an evolutionary process which is still in process and which – though of varying character and intensity – has led to these areas exhibiting unique attributes of a mutually evolving relationship and interaction between humans and their natural surroundings, one which may be very similar to the human-nature interaction as present in continuing organically evolved landscapes. Category III protected areas are typically small, focus on specific features, and are predominantly entirely unmodified by humans in character. Yet, they can also be culturally-influenced natural features, natural-cultural sites or cultural sites with associated ecology. As such, they may constitute small, single or contiguous entities that together form a single or part of a continuing organically evolved landscape.

• Associative landscapes overlap conceptually with all of the protected area category types. All areas categorised according to the IUCN protected area system contain within them natural attributes of value for in-situ conservation measures that may also be of high associative significance.

The idea of conceptual similarity is illustrated diagrammatically in figure 6on the following page.

8

WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

CATEGORIES

IUCN PROTECTED AREA CATEGORIES Ia Ib II III IV V VI

I – Designed and intentionally created

landscapes I I

IIa – Relict (or fossil) organically evolved

landscapes IIa IIa IIa IIa IIa

IIb – Continuing organically evolved landscapes IIb IIb IIb IIb

III – Associative landscapes III III III III III III III Figure 6: Conceptual similarity between World Heritage cultural landscape categories and IUCN protected area categories Spatial Linkages Based upon an assignment of the cultural landscape categories to the World Heritage listed cultural landscape sites, this second part of the study displays the results of a spatial overlap examination which was structured around the following steps and which served to triangulate the various spatial information sources: First, an analysis of World Heritage evaluation reports, nomination dossiers, the UNEP-WCMC information sheets on all mixed sites, and the periodic reporting summaries concerning the protection and management status of the sites in question was undertaken. Second, a spatial WDPA-based GIS data analysis and comparison was carried out which, in a third step, was combined with an interview-based verification exercise with involved management authorities, agencies and protected area experts. The purpose of the third step was to sample and validate information on the existence of protected areas within the delineation of the respective cultural landscapes in order to raise the level of accuracy for this spatial overlap exercise. There is a strong connection between World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas: 52 (or 60%) of the 86 listed cultural landscapes by May 2013 overlap in whole or in part with protected areas.6 For those 60% World Heritage cultural landscapes for which spatial overlap with protected areas was found to exist, around half (54%) of the sites overlap with Category V Protected Landscapes/Seascapes (see fig. 7 on the next page). 42% of the 52 cultural landscape properties that are spatially linked to protected areas overlap with Category II, and/or 33% with Category IV protected areas. Very few World Heritage cultural landscapes overlap with Category Ia (6%), III (10%) and VI protected areas (6%). None cultural landscapes overlap with large, unmodified Category Ib wilderness areas, while 13% overlap with protected areas that are not assigned an IUCN protected area management category.

6 See Annex for a list of the World Heritage cultural landscapes and the overlapping protected areas.

9

Figure 7: Frequency of IUCN protected area categories overlap with World Heritage cultural landscapes7 Looking at the overlap of the different categories of World Heritage cultural landscapes with IUCN protected areas (see fig. 8 below) the strongest linkage exists between continuously evolving organic cultural landscapes: half (50%) of those 52 World Heritage cultural landscapes for which spatial overlap with protected areas was found to exist are recognized as continuously evolving organic cultural landscapes. 29% of the World Heritage cultural landscapes that overlap with protected areas are relict, 14% are associative, and 7% are designed cultural landscapes.

Figure 8: Frequency of World Heritage cultural landscape categories overlapping with IUCN-categorised protected areas Spatial overlap of World Heritage cultural landscapes with protected areas therefore is found to occur along the gradient Continuing landscapes > Associative landscapes = Relict/Fossil landscapes > Designed landscapes, from most to least likely.

7 The numbers do not add up to 100%, because a World Heritage cultural landscape site may be composed of more than one protected area, to which different categories are assigned.

10

Management and Governance Interfaces ‘On the Ground’ The third part of the study aims at exploring the linkages between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN categorised protected areas in terms of management and governance. The purpose is to examine the common denominators regarding the practical interrelation and integration that occurs ‘on the ground’ – seizing the two World Heritage cultural landscapes Hortobágy in Hungary and Thingvellir in Iceland as case studies. In both case study sites, the World Heritage designated areas overlap entirely with the associated Category II assigned protected areas. Not surprisingly therefore they demonstrate strong management and governance linkages between the World Heritage cultural landscapes and the protected areas. At both sites, World Heritage governance takes place through the regimes stipulated for the corresponding protected area established under the national nature conservation legislation. The powers and responsibilities for each of the World Heritage cultural landscape sites, including the authority and accountability for managing the site, rest with the protected area agencies. The governance of both protected areas corresponds to ‘governance by government’ in relation to the IUCN classification matrix. The same stakeholders are involved through the same participatory processes in the management of both the World Heritage sites and their relevant protected areas. The employees that work for the protected areas also administer the World Heritage site, and the protected area staff contribute to the periodic reporting for the World Heritage cultural landscape. Most of the funding for the management and governance of the World Heritage cultural landscape is allocated through the protected area and the responsible agencies. Significant linkages exist between management plan objectives for both protected areas and management aims for World Heritage cultural landscape. World Heritage status is entirely consistent with – and indeed benefits from – the sites also being protected areas in line with IUCN’s standards.

11

Conclusions World Heritage cultural landscapes and the IUCN protected area management categories system are strongly linked to each other. Often, many of the principles of protected area management find similar application in World Heritage cultural landscapes – because they and protected areas share a comparable view of taking into account integrity, protection and management requirements. This is apparent in the conceptual and spatial relationships between the two systems, and it is reflected in the practical realities on the ground: like protected areas, the approach of the World Heritage Convention is to identify and protect spatially explicit and defined areas that are illustrative and outstanding examples for the combined works of nature and man. As special places that are identified for special measures of protection, World Heritage cultural landscapes resemble designated protected areas, although not all may be formally classified as such. At the site level where there is overlap, there appear to be a strong integration of World Heritage cultural landscape and protected area management and governance. This occurs even though emphasis in the protected areas, with a priority for nature conservation, is not entirely identical with the integrated cultural and natural heritage focus of a cultural landscape. Already IUCN applies the following principle to natural and mixed World Heritage sites: “natural World Heritage sites are expected to be managed in ways that are equivalent to being in a protected area, whether or not they are formally protected” (Dudley 2008, p. 71). Yet, as shown by Dudley, very few natural World Heritage sites with special importance for biodiversity conservation (inscribed at least for criteria ix and/or x) overlap with Category V and VI: out of the by then examined 128 sites attributed a protected area category the categories V and VI were represented in eight and six World Heritage sites respectively. Taking into account the considerable spatial overlap of World Heritage cultural landscapes with protected areas in general and especially with Category V areas – as shown by this study – a complementary relationship between World Heritage natural and cultural landscape sites exists in their shared aim to conserve the world’s outstanding universally valued heritage. It is hence concluded that, in relation to IUCN’s mandate and priorities in relation to protected areas, natural and mixed World Heritage properties are clearly not a sufficient priority. There is a unambiguous rationale for IUCN to extend the priority it attaches to natural World Heritage towards supporting and advising the conservation, effective management and equitable governance of World Heritage cultural landscapes, which in many cases may play as important, or even a greater role in relation to national and international protected area types as natural and mixed World Heritage properties.

12

Recommendations The study provides the foundation for a set of recommended activities that reinforce the role of World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas in conserving biological and cultural diversity: IUCN, working in partnership with ICOMOS, ICCROM, UNESCO and other relevant international bodies, should make better use of the synergies that exist between natural and cultural values in World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas.8 As ICOMOS and IUCN both have a strong and shared interest in World Heritage cultural landscapes, the following is recommended to IUCN: • Seek to develop a consistent and shared strategy with ICOMOS towards World Heritage cultural

landscapes, making clearer where their interests overlap, and with a synthesised approach to the consistent and enhanced contribution of IUCN to the evaluation of properties nominated in this category.

• Jointly develop further thematic research and studies on the various cultural landscape categories in the various world regions.

World Heritage cultural landscapes are in many cases as important to IUCN objectives as are natural and mixed sites – given their complementary roles in the connection between protected areas and World Heritage. In many cultural landscapes there are significant natural values which are of interest to IUCN. The biodiversity and ecosystem services values of some cultural landscapes may also be equivalent to or greater than those of sites listed as natural World Heritage under criterion (viii). It is hence recommended that IUCN should: • Strengthen the priority for its work on World Heritage cultural landscapes and recognise more fully

the role they play in the conservation and sustainable use of the biological diversity and in achieving IUCN’s goals for protected areas.

• Enhance and refine the conceptual and practical basis for assessing natural heritage values among new nominations for World Heritage cultural landscapes in light of the strong linkage that exists between cultural landscapes and biodiversity conservation (for example, this study could provide detailed information for an update of the “2006 IUCN Guidelines for Reviewers of Cultural Landscapes for the Assessment of Natural Values in Cultural Landscapes”).

• Provide advice to States Parties to the Convention, in coordination with ICOMOS, in supporting the preparation of nominations of cultural landscapes with demonstrable potential OUV, with particular reference to assuring the protection of the natural heritage qualities that they possess.

• Strengthen the links to other IUCN programs that are concerned with the biological and cultural interface that is also a characteristic of World Heritage cultural landscapes, such as the important connection to the IUCN-UNESCO Sacred Natural Sites Management Guidelines (Wild & McLeod 2008) and the WCPA Specialists Groups of Cultural and Spiritual Values (CSVPA), and Protected Landscapes (SGPL).

• Recognize and further explore, in collaboration with IUCN TILCEPA and other partners like the Global Environment Facility’s Small Grants Programme on Community Management of Protected Areas for Conservation (COMPACT), the many different governance regimes that exist and become increasingly important for World Heritage cultural landscapes, including those governed for example by indigenous people and local communities.

National authorities should plan and manage World Heritage cultural landscapes alongside protected areas in a more integrated way. National authorities should link both conservation instruments – World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas – as mutually reinforcing tools for biodiversity conservation planning and management. They should consider and ensure equitable protection of all relevant natural and cultural

8 In 2009, ICOMOS has carried out a major external “Review of ICOMOS” working methods and procedures for the evaluation of cultural and mixed properties” (Tabet 2010). This report lays out a number of recommendations concerning cultural landscapes and the procedures used by ICOMOS and IUCN for work on this World Heritage property type – as well as the responses of ICOMOS to these. The ‘Tabet report’ and the “Evaluation of IUCN’s work in World Heritage nominations” (Cameron 2005), which also includes a recommendation to IUCN and its work on cultural landscapes, serve as reference for the following recommendations.

13

heritage when managing both World Heritage sites and national protected area designations that overlap with one another. The integration of World Heritage cultural landscapes (already listed or sites to be nominated) with national and/or sub-national systems of protected areas and vice-versa may provide an ideal framework for delivering conservation benefits. States Parties play an important role in connecting protected area guidance (like the Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas; Phillips 2002) with management and governance of World Heritage cultural landscapes to foster a more effective conservation of sites that do not overlap with protected areas or to raise the management and governance quality of tentative sites to a level that meets the integrity (including boundaries), authenticity, and protection and management requirements stipulated by the Convention. It follows that if such potential or listed cultural landscape sites are not yet protected areas, States Parties should consider designation and protection (according to the IUCN system). Site managers of World Heritage cultural landscapes and associated protected areas should try to maximise the benefits of overlap. At the site level, managers of both World Heritage cultural landscapes and overlapping protected areas should more clearly identify the synergies between the two systems of protection and exploit the potential that each offers to support the other. There is considerable scope for applying protected area management and governance effectiveness and quality assessment tools to World Heritage cultural landscapes. A particular area of shared interest is the role that both World Heritage cultural landscapes and certain kinds of protected areas can play not only in the conservation of ‘wild’ biodiversity, but also in the protection of plant and animal genetic diversity (including agrobiodiversity). Data management should be improved so that information about World Heritage cultural landscapes and protected areas can be more easily monitored and compared in future. IUCN, in conjunction with ICOMOS, the World Heritage Centre and UNEP-WCMC should develop a data base on World Heritage cultural landscapes that clearly indicates the boundaries of the sites, and also indicates under which kind of cultural landscape categories protected areas overlapping with World Heritage cultural landscapes are inscribed, and include this information in the World Database on Protected Areas.

14

References Cameron, C. 2005. Evaluation of IUCN’s work in World Heritage Nominations. de Groot, R. & Ramakrishnan, P.S. (coordinating lead authors), 2005. Cultural and Amenity Services.

In: Hassan, R., Scholes, R. & Ash, N., eds. Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1 (Chapter 17). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Washington; Covelo ; London: Island Press, pp. 455-476.

Dudley, N., ed. 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland: IUCN. IUCN/WCMC, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland ; Cambridge:

IUCN & WCMC. IUCN, 2006. IUCN Evaluation of World Heritage Nominations: Guidelines for Reviewers of Cultural

Landscapes – The Assessment of Natural Values in Cultural Landscapes. A Note by IUCN. Gland: IUCN.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., & Tricaud, P., eds. 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes – A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Papers No. 26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Phillips, A., 1995. Cultural Landscapes: An IUCN Perspective. In: von Droste, B., Plachter, H. & Rössler, M., eds (in cooperation with UNESCO). Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value. Components of a Global Strategy. Jena ; Stuttgart ; New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag, pp. 380-392.

Phillips, A., 1998. The nature of cultural landscapes – a nature conservation perspective. Landscape Research, 23 (1), pp. 21-38.

Phillips, A., 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas. Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 9 (Series Editor Phillips, A.). Gland ; Cambridge: IUCN.

Phillips, A., 2003. Cultural Landscapes: IUCN’s Changing Vision of Protected Areas. In: UNESCO. Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage Papers No. 7. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 40-49.

Phillips, A., 2005. Landscape as a meeting ground: Category V Protected Lanscapes/Seascapes and World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. In: Brown, J., Mitchell, N. & Beresford, M., eds. The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community. Gland ; Cambridge: IUCN, pp. 19-35.

Rössler, M. & Mitchell, N., 2005. Linkages in the Landscape/Seascape: Landscape Linkages Beyond Boundaries?. In: Patry, M., ed. World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. World Heritage Reports No. 16. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 23-26.

Rössler, M., 2006. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A UNESCO Flagship Programme 1992 – 2006. Landscape Research, 31 (4), pp. 333-353.

Tabet, 2010. Review of ICOMOS’ working methods and procedures for the evaluation of cultural and mixed properties. Paris: ICOMOS.

UNESCO, 1972. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation at its Seventeenth Session, Paris, 16 November.

UNESCO, 2002. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Adopted by the General Conference of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation at its Thirtyfirst Session, Paris, 2 November.

UNESCO, 2012. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Wild, R. & McLeod, C., eds. 2008. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 16 (Series Editor Valentine, P.). Gland: IUCN.

15

Annex

Country Title of World

Heritage Cultural Landscape

Year(s) of Inscription

World Heritage Criteria

Principal Category(ies)

of Cultural Landscape

Associated Protected Area(s)

IUCN Management Category of associated

PA(s)

Afghanistan

Cultural Landscape and Archaeological

Remains of the Bamiyan Valley

2003 (i)(ii)(iii) (iv)(vi) IIa

Proposed Bamiyan National Heritage Protected Area

No category assigned

Andorra Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley 2004 (v) IIb None

Argentina Quebrada de Humahuaca 2003 (ii)(iv)(v) IIa None

Australia Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 1987, 1994 (v)(vi)(vii)

(ix) III Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park

II (also inscribed

as a natural WH site)

Austria Hallstatt-Dachstein /

Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape

1997 (iii)(iv) IIb

Dachstein-Salzkammergut

Landscape Protection Areas;

Dachstein, Kleines and Großes Löckenmoos

Nature Reserves; Several Natural

Monuments

V, IV and III

Austria Wachau Cultural Landscape 2000 (ii)(iv) IIb

Wachau und Umgebung &

Göttweigerberg und Umgebung

Landscape Protection Areas; Jauerling-Wachau

Nature Park; Several Natural

Monuments

V and III

Austria / Hungary

Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape 2001 (v) IIb

Fertö-Hanság National Park (H); Neusiedlersee und

Umgebung Landscape

Conservation Area (H); Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel National

Park (A); Neusiedlersee und Umgebung Nature

Reserve (A)

II and V (H), II and IV (A)

Azerbaijan Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape 2007 (iii) IIa None

Brazil

Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes

between the Mountain and the Sea

2012 (v)(vi) IIb & III

Tijuca National Park, Cidade

Municipal Park; Chacrinha State

Park; Environmental

Protection Areas Orla Marítima,

Morro do Lerne, and Morros da

Babilônia E de São João

II and V

Canada Landscape of Grand Pré 2012 (v)(vi) IIb & III None

China Mount Wutai 2009 (ii)(iii)(iv)(vi) III

Mount Wutai National Park,

Wutaishancaodian Nature Reserve

V

China West Lake Cultural

Landscape of Hangzhou

2011 (ii)(iii)(vi) I & III None

16









PA(s)

Colombia Coffee Cultural Landscape of

Colombia 2011 (v)(vi) IIb None

Croatia Stari Grad Plain 2008 (ii)(iii)(v) IIb None

Cuba Viñales Valley 1999 (iv) IIb Viñales National Park II

Cuba

Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in

the Southeast of Cuba

2000 (iii)(iv) IIa

Gran Piedra Protected Natural

Landscape; Baconao Protected Area of Managed

Resources

V and VI

Czech Republic

Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape 1996 (i)(ii)(iv) I

Lednice rybnyky National Nature

Reserve IV

Ethiopia Konso Cultural Landscape 2011 (iii)(v) IIb None

France Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin 2012 (ii)(iv)(vi) IIa

Scarpe-Escaut Regional Nature

Park V

France Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion 1999 (iii)(iv) IIb None

France

The Causses and the Cévennes,

Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural

Landscape

2011 (iii)(v) IIb

Grands Causses Regional Nature Park, Cévennes National Park (Buffer Zone &

Core Area)

V

France The Loire Valley

between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

2000 (i)(ii)(iv) IIb

Loire Anjou Touraine Regional

Nature Park; Several Nature

Reserves (i.e. Ile de Saint-Pryvé-Saint-Mesmin, Chambord);

Several Biotopes under Protection Order (i.e. Pointe

de Courpain, Héronnière de

Courpain)

V and IV

France / Spain

Pyrénnées-Mont Perdu 1997, 1999 (iii)(iv)(v)

(vii)(viii) IIb

Pyrénées Occidentales

National Park - Core and Buffer

Zone (F); Ordesa y Monte Pendido

National Park (Sp); Viñamala National

Game Reserve (Sp)

II (F) (Sp), IV (Sp) and V (F) (also inscribed


Gabon Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of

Lopé-Okanda 2007 (iii)(iv)(ix)

(x) IIa

Lopé-Okanda National Park;

Lopé-Okanda Aires Culturelles Protégées

II and III (also inscribed


Germany Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz 2000 (ii)(iv) I

Mittlere Elbe Landscape

Protection Area V

Germany Upper Middle Rhine Valley 2002 (ii)(iv)(v) IIb

Nassua & Rhein-Taunus Nature

Park; Rheingebiet von Bingen bis

Koblenz Landscape

Protection Area; Several Nature Reserves (i.e.

Teufelskadrich)

V and IV

17









PA(s)

Germany / Poland

Muskauer Park / Park Mużakowski 2004 (i)(iv) I

Muskauer Parklandschaft und

Neißeaue Landscape

Protection Area (G), Landscape

Park Łuk Mużakowa and

Protected Landscape Area

(P)

V (G) (P)

Hungary Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta 1999 (iv)(v) IIb Hortobágy National

Park II

Hungary Tokaj Wine Region

Historic Cultural Landscape

2002 (iii)(v) IIb Tokaj-Bodrogzug

Landscape Protection Area

V

Iceland Þingvellir National Park 2004 (iii)(vi) IIa Thingvellir National

Park II

Iran, Islamic Republic of

Bam and its Cultural Landscape 2004 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v) IIb None

Iran, Islamic Republic of The Persian Garden 2011 (i)(ii)(iii)

(iv)(vi) I None

India Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka 2003 (iii)(v) IIb Ratapani Wild Life

Sanctuary IV

Indonesia Cultural Landscape of Bali Province 2012 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb & III Batukau I/II/III No category

assigned

Israel Incense Route -

Desert Cities in the Negev

2005 (iii)(iv) IIa Mazuq HaZinnim Nature Reserve IV

Italy

Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and

Tinetto)

1997 (ii)(iv)(v) IIb

Cinque Terre Marine Natural Protected Area, Cinque Terre National Park, Porto Venere

Regional Nature Park

IV and V

Italy Costiera Amalfitana 1997 (ii)(iv)(v) IIb

Valle delle Ferriere State Nature

Reserve; Regional Park Monti Lattari

IV; Regional Park Monti Lattari: No category assigned

Italy

Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park

with the Archaeological sites of

Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa di

Padula

1998 (iii)(iv) IIa Cilento and Vallo di

Diano National Park

V

Italy Sacri Monti of Piedmont and

Lombardy 2003 (ii)(iv) III

Sacro Monte di Crea Regional

Nature Park; Sacro Monte di Belmonte,

Sacro Monte Calvario di

Domodossola, Sacro Monte della

SS: Trinità di Ghiffa, Sacro

Monte di Varallo, Sacro Monte d'Orta

Regional Nature Reserves

V and IV

18









PA(s)

Italy Val d'Orcia 2004 (iv)(vi) I & III

Val d'Orcia Regional Nature

Park (Area naturale protetta di

interesse locale Val d'Orcia), di

Lucciolabella Regional Nature

Reserve

V

Japan

Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in

the Kii Mountain Range

2004 (ii)(iii)(iv)(vi) III Yoshino-Kumano National Park II

Japan Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and ist Cultural

Landscape 2007 (ii)(iii)(v) IIa None

Kazakhstan

Petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of

Tamgaly

2004 (iii) IIa None

Jordan Wadi Rum Protected Area 2011 (iii)(v) (vii) IIa Wadi Rum

Protected Area

V (also inscribed


Kenya Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests 2008 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb & III

Several National Monuments (i.e. Kaya Bomu or Kaya Kauma)

III

Kyrgyzstan Sulaiman-Too Sacred Mountain 2009 (iii)(vi) III None

Lao People's

Democratic Republic

Vat Phou and Associated Ancient

Settlements within the Champasak Cultural

Landscape

2001 (iii)(iv)(vi) III None

Lebanon

Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz el-

Rab)

1998 (iii)(iv) III Foret des Cedres

de Dieu Forest reserve

IV

Lithuania

Kernavė Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of

Kernavė)

2004 (iii)(iv) IIa Kernavé Cultural

State Strict Reserve

V

Lithuania / Russia Curonian Spit 2000 (v) IIb

Kursiu Nerija National Park (Lit); Kurshskaja Kosa

National Park (Rus)

II (Lit) (Rus)

Madagascar Royal Hill of Ambohimanga 2001 (iii)(iv)(vi) III None

Malaysia Lenggong Valley 2012 (iii)(iv) IIa None

Mauritius Le Morne Cultural Landscape 2008 (i)(vi) IIa & III None

Mexico Agave Landscape and

Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila

2006 (ii)(iv)(v) (vi) IIb None

Mongolia Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape 2004 (ii)(iii)(iv) IIb Orkhon Valley

National Park II

Mongolia Petroglyphic

Complexes of the Mongolian Altai

2011 (iii) IIa Altai Tavan Bogd

National Conservation Park

II

New Zealand

Tongariro National Park 1990, 1993 (vi)(vii)(viii) III Tongariro National

Park

II (also inscribed


19









PA(s)

Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape 1999 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb None

Nigeria Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove 2005 (ii)(iii)(iv) IIb & III None

Norway Vegaøyan - The Vega Archipelago 2004 (v) IIb

Hysvær/Søla Protected

Landscape Area; Several Nature

Reserves and Bird Sanctuaries

V, Ia and IV

Norway Røros Mining Town

and the Circumference

2010 (iii)(iv)(v) IIa

Tufsingdalseskeren and Lille Korssjøen Nature Reserves;

Kvitsanden Protected

Landscape

Ia and IV

Palau Rock Islands Southern Lagoon 2012 (iii)(v)

(vii)(ix)(x) IIa

Ngerukuid Islands Wildlife Preserve;

Ngemelis Conservation Area;

Ngerumekoal Spawning Area;

Ngkisaol Sardines Sanctuary;

Ngederrak Reef Conservation Area

III, V, IV, II; Rock Island

Southern Lagoon: No

category assigned

(also inscribed as a natural

WH site)

Papua New Guinea

Kuk Early Agricultural Site 2008 (iii)(iv) IIa None

Philippines Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras 1995 (iii)(iv)(v) IIb None

Poland

Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: the

Mannerist Architectural and Park Landscape Complex and Pilgrimage Park

1999 (ii)(iv) I None

Portugal Cultural Landscape of Sintra 1995 (ii)(iv)(v) I Sintra-Cascais

Nature Park V

Portugal Alto Douro Wine Region 2001 (iii)(iv)(v) IIb None

Portugal Landscape of the Pico

Island Vineyard Culture

2004 (iii)(v) IIb

Pico’s Vineyard Culture Protected

Landscape of Regional Interest

V

Senegal

Bassari Country: Bassari, Fula and

Bedik Cultural Landscapes

2012 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb None

Senegal Saloum Delta 2011 (iii)(iv)(v) IIb

Delta du Saloum National Park;

Community Nature Reserve Missira;

Community Managed Marine Protected Area

Bamboung

II; Missira & Bamboung: No category

assigned

South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape 2003 (ii)(iii)(iv)(v) IIa

Mapungubwe National Park, Vemre Nature

Reserve

II

South Africa Richtersveld Cultural

and Botanical Landscape

2007 (iv)(v) IIb Richtersveld Community

Conservancy

No category assigned

20









PA(s)

Spain Aranjuez Cultural Landscape 2001 (ii)(iv) I None

Spain Cultural Landscape of

the Serra de Tramuntana

2011 (ii)(iv)(v) IIb None

Sweden Agricultural

Landscape of Southern Öland

2000 (iv)(v) IIb

Several protected areas (i.e.

Hulterstad Nature Conservation Area;

Ottenby Nature Reserve)

V and IV

Switzerland Lavaux, Vineyard Terraces 2007 (iii)(iv)(v) IIb

Lavaux Landscape and Natural

Monument of National

Importance

V

Syrian Arab Republic

Ancient villages of Northern Syria 2011 (iii)(iv)(v) IIa None

Tanzania Ngorongoro Conservation Area 1979, 2010 (iv)(vii)

(viii)(ix)(x) IIa Ngorongoro Conservation Area

VI (also inscribed


Togo Koutammakou, the

Land of the Batammariba

2004 (v)(vi) IIb & III None

United Kingdom

Blaenavon Industrial Landscape 2000 (iii)(iv) IIa None

United Kingdom

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2003 (ii)(iii)(iv) I & III None

United Kingdom

Cornwall and West Devon Mining

Landscape 2006 (ii)(ii)(iv) IIa

East Devon Cornwall Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty

V

United Kingdom St. Kilda 1986, 2005 (iii)(v)(vii)

(ix)(x) IIa St. Kilda National Nature Reserve

IV (also inscribed


United States of America

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National

Monument, Hawai 2010 (iii)(vi)

(viii)(ix)(x) IIa & III

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

Coral Reef Ecosystem

Reserve; Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge;

Midway Atoll National Wildlife

Refuge; Kure Atoll State Wildlife

Sanctuary

VI, Ia and II; Kure Atoll

State Wildlife Sanctuary: No

category assigned

(also inscribed as a natural

WH site)

Vanuata Chief Roi Mata's Domain 2008 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb & III None

Zimbabwe Matobo Hills 2003 (iii)(v)(vi) IIb & III Rhodes Matopos National Park II

InternatIonal UnIon for ConservatIon of natUreRue Mauverney 281196 GlandSwitzerlandTel: +41 22 999 0000Fax: +41 22 999 0002www.iucn.org

Documents

Linking Landscapes · 2014. 1. 7. · Linking Landscapes Exploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas IUCN World Heritage Study